lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 1647
Report #1647 Skillset: Acrobatics Skill: Scissorflip Org: Nekotai Status: Completed Apr 2017 Furies' Decision: Solutions 2 and 3. Problem: It has come to my attention that Scissorflip stuns targets, even on failure. This stun is 1s long. Given that scissorflip is enemy list dependant, and doesn't count as magical movement, I believe this is too strong. This report aims to limit the stun effect, or keep it and limit the group impact. 0 R: 4 Solution #1: Keep power cost at 5p, change the stun to a 2s balance loss, and ONLY apply to successful targets. The balance loss should not take effect if the target is already off balance or eq for any reason. R: 1 Solution #2: Change scissorflip 1s stun to 1s bal loss. Should not apply if the target is already off balance. Keep the rest of the ability the same as it is currently - including continuing to affect targets that fail to move. R: 0 Solution #3: In either case, change the scissorflip line on the target to indicate what direction they have been moved in (You are thrown out to the west!). Optionally, also have a third-person line in the room to indicate where people who were moved were thrown. Player Comments: ---on 4/2 @ 02:11 writes: I like the idea of solution 3, but I will have to think on it more. ---on 4/2 @ 03:01 writes: 1 or 3 sounds fine. Or just remove the stun on failure. Scissorflip is quite strong but only slightly overtuned, not majorly, I think. ---on 4/2 @ 04:07 writes: Crow squall is 1p and hits everyone in the room (no enemy list), so solution 3 is making it a more expensive Crow Squall that also stuns your allies. Why not just have it not stun those who don't get scissorflipped? Or swap it to a balance-loss (you're knocked off-bal for 1s when you get flipped), so it's not impacting curing. ---on 4/2 @ 06:10 writes: I would vote removing the stun on failure. It should stun only on success ---on 4/2 @ 19:23 writes: I agree with Shuyin. Keep it the same but don't stun failures ---on 4/3 @ 13:32 writes: I personally am not bothered by the 1s stun for the power cost involved, and this is coming from a bitter psymet monk. That said I think Shuyin/Xenthos' suggestion to restrict the stun to successful moves is a good way to go. I also like the idea of switching it all to balance loss as Xenthos suggested because I do think it's important that you have some way to stop people from immediately walking back in, I think if you were to do that that there also wouldn't be a large issue with causing bal loss on the targets that stay in the room. ---on 4/6 @ 18:10 writes: Agreed with above. Make it stun on successful move only. Do not like any suggestions present otherwise. 1 means people can walk right back in. 2 would neuter the skill and require scripting to make it usefl. 3 would make it far too expensive. The stun is 1s, it'd be worth 1p still. Yes, same as squall, but I am stunning my allies still. ---on 4/8 @ 05:03 writes: I've updated the solutions based on the above feedback. My preference is for solution 1, to remove stun from the ability entirely while keeping its functionality to prevent people walking back in immediately. If that is not acceptable, then either limiting the amount of people it affects (sol2), or adding a disadvantage to its use (sol3) would be the alternatives. ---on 4/9 @ 23:03 writes: I see solution 2 as being a huge buff in smaller skirmishes, as well as being unwieldy with enemy list micromanagement similar to old static field in larger fights. Solution 1 is ok, but is also arguably a buff as it would now stop someone from coming back in for a guaranteed 2 seconds (or more if they were already off bal) rather than 1 second with the current stun. Solution 3 just encourages using it with serpent imo. Still prefer keeping it as-is but without the stun on failed movement. ---on 4/10 @ 04:48 writes: I prefer the 1s stun over the balance loss, as balance loss inherently stacks with itself. Which also means if you hit an entangle and writhe that'll stack, and balance classes attacking in general get hit harder. ---on 4/10 @ 13:35 writes: I've updated the solutions again, to take into account the above feedback. Solution 1 has been changed to specify not-stacking. This change should have the additional side effect of allowing lucky people (who have a less than 2s bal/eq timer at the point of being flipped) to recover faster. It is still my prefered solution, because I stuns in general simply shut down everything, and feel that they should be less prevalent in the game in general. In return, I feel that a 2s movement prevention fits the idea of the ability more. Solution 2 is the alternative for if stun MUST stay - since solution 3 does not seem acceptable, then any scissorflip with stun must be limited in the scope of who it affects. To address the concern about big skirmishes small skirmishes, the solution has been updated to use a percentage number. This will additionally eliminate the need to micromanage enemy lists: there's only one real way to manage it - put as many applicable people in their enemy list as you can, end of story. As a bonus, it becomes an ability that gets buffed by the enemy list artifact. More value for an artifact, to drive more sales. Win/win. ---on 4/10 @ 13:42 writes: I feel am okay with the new solution 1 ---on 4/10 @ 19:58 writes: 5p to move 1 random person out of 3 possible enemies out of the room and give them a 1s stun? No thanks. Making the enemy list rune even more necessary is not a win-win situation either. Not everyone has one. Still preferring the 1s stun on solution 1. Having all of these conditions on what effect skills will actually give just overcomplicates things. ---on 4/12 @ 11:42 writes: Good point about 5p only hitting 1 person. Stuns are strong, but not worth that. In a way, it could limit scissorflip to an ability you DON'T use in such scenarios, but well, I take the point that it might still be too much. As a result, solution 2 has been scrapped. As an alternative to solution 1, instead of 2s balance loss - since that's an extra second over the current 1s stun - I'll use the suggestion for a 1s balance loss instead - but keep the on-fail side effect. As I've explained multiple times, and upon further thinking on the feedback provided, I don't think stun should be available in this ability when a similar mechanic exists to perform the same goal - movement blocking. ---on 4/13 @ 07:01 writes: Regardless of the solution, can scissorflip's line also changed to reference what direction you got kicked to? ---on 4/13 @ 16:09 writes: I think you're overvaluing stun and undervaluing balance loss, but it's probably a wash in this case. ---on 4/14 @ 00:42 writes: That's possible. In this case, the stun doesn't actually contribute to the flipper's offense, because he's not hitting these targets and using stun at the same time ot build an offense, yes. However, I feel that if it is not needed to actually do what the ability is trying to achieve (team cohesion disruption, movement hinder), then just remove it. Making stuns rare justifies their strength, and their costs, in places where they are properly implemented for combat reasons. Regarding balance loss - if it's made to not stack with existing off-eq/off-bal, then I really don't see how I'm "undervaluing" it. ---on 4/16 @ 19:20 writes: Solution 2 and 3 only. I would have been fine just making it not stun on failure, but hey, sure ---on 4/17 @ 04:09 writes: I'm stuck between the second two solutions, but I know that I dislike that first.